Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Reality Check:20 July 2017 Sol88: Swallows the Thunderbolts magnetic reconnection "Kool-Aid" - what a surprise!Drinking the Kool-AidWe will ignore the Thunderbolts stupidity of lying about Hannes Alfven's opinion back in the 1980's (he mentions the valid and known concerns of using the frozen in magnetic filed approximation a few times).

OMG. Sometimes the irony of the statements that come out of RC's mouth really blow up the irony meter and they make me laugh out loud. Alfven wasn't just "concerned" about the frozen in field concept, he rejected MR theory outright, and he made MR theory totally irrelevant and obsolete with his double layer paper. In fact this is how Alfven described MR theory:

B. Magnetic Merging — A Pseudo-Science

Since then I have stressed in a large number of papers the danger of using the frozen-in concept. For example, in a paper "Electric Current Structure of the Magnetosphere" (Alfvén, 1975), I made a table showing the difference between the real plasma and "a fictitious medium" called "the pseudo-plasma," the latter having frozen in magnetic field lines moving with the plasma. The most important criticism of the "merging" mechanism of energy transfer is due to Heikkila (1973) who with increasing strength has demonstrated that it is wrong. In spite of all this, we have witnessed at the same time an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept. Indeed, we have been burdened with a gigantic pseudo-science which penetrates large parts of cosmic plasma physics. The monograph CP treats the field-line reconnection (merging) concept in 1.3, 11.3, and 11.5. We may conclude that anyone who uses the merging concepts states by implication that no double layers exist.

A new epoch in magnetospheric physics was inaugurated by L. Lyons and D. Williams' monograph (1985). They treat magnetospheric phenomena systematically by the particle approach and demonstrate that the fluid dynamic approach gives erroneous results. The error of the latter approach is of a basic character. Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer.

I was naive enough to believe that such a pseudo-science would die by itself in the scientific community, and I concentrated my work on more pleasant problems. To my great surprise the opposite has occurred; the "merging" pseudo-science seems to be increasingly powerful. Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that some of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority for the latter group.

In those parts of solar physics which do not deal with the interior of the Sun and the dense photospheric region (fields where the frozen-in concept may be valid), the state is even worse. It is difficult to find theoretical papers on the low density regions which are correct. The present state of plasma astrophysics seems to be almost completely isolated from the new concepts of plasma which the in situ measurements on space plasma have made necessary (see Section VIII).

I sincerely hope that the increased interest in the study of double layers — which is fatal to this pseudoscience — will change the situation. Whenever we find a double layer (or any other E ll # 0) we hammer a nail into the coffin of the "merging" pseudo-science.

This quote is from Alfven's keynote speech from the very same conference where he first presented his double layer paper which makes the whole MR concept irrelevant and obsolete in all current carrying environments. Alfven outright *rejected* MR theory as "pseudoscience". Period.

The ones who continue to "drink the Kool-Aid' are the ones who are still living in denial of Alfven's double layer paper and the irrelevant nature of 'magnetic reconnection' theory for the past several decades.

It's also utterly *ironic* that RC is trying to play the role of the 'expert' on plasma physics considering the fact that he's admitted several times to me on several forums that he's never even sat down and read a real textbook on MHD theory. Even more ironic is the fact that I've been waiting for over five years for RC and Clinger to produce their non-existent math formula to describe a non-zero rate of "magnetic reconnection" which supposedly occurs in Clinger's vacuum contraption *without* plasma as they both claimed they could describe. More than five frigging years later and they have still never produced their missing math formula!

This is the same clueless individual who claimed that electrical discharges are "impossible" in plasma and who kept trying to go into pure denial of Dungey's published paper from the 1950's that describes "magnetic reconnection" in solar flares as an *electrical discharge* process!

RC is also the same clueless individual who continues (probably to this day) to defend Brian Koberlein's bogus claim that EU solar theories predict "no neutrinos". I've never met a more ignorant or belligerent person than reality check anywhere on the internet. It's an absolute riot that RC of all people would try to play the role of 'expert' on anything related to plasma physics or EU/PC theory. He doesn't have the first clue how any of it actually works.

For anyone interested in seeing how ridiculously off base the folks as ISF are on this topic, you can pick up the end of a conversation that I had with them on MR theory at ISF in this thread:

Suffice to say that Clinger (and pretty much every EU/PC hater at ISF) totally backed himself (themselves) into a mathematical corner because he (they) could never come up with a mathematical formula to describe a non-zero rate of magnetic reconnection in Clinger's stupid vacuum contraption as he promised to demonstrate mathematically for almost a whole year, but never did. They had to ban me at ISF to shut me up about this topic too because I caught Clinger and RC red handed. Their lack of a mathematical formula to support their absurdly ignorant claims about 'reconnection" without plasma and particle acceleration blew them away and everyone knew it. They still know it too. Five years and not one of the mathematical hot shots at ISF has *ever* produced that missing math formula that Clinger promised me about six years ago when he first claimed that plasma was optional in the 'reconnection" process. They're all scientific toast and they all know it too, except of course for poor clueless RC.

Magnetic reconnection is a measured physical process with a solid theoretical background. The concept is easy enough for anyone to visualize.

Well, MR theory is easily enough to describe as a "physical process", that occurs "in plasma" where magnetic field energy is converted into plasma particle acceleration. Unfortunately RC and Clinger tried to leave out the *plasma* as well as the plasma particle acceleration process and still claim they achieved "magnetic reconnection". While it is probably very easy for *most* people to understand the basic theory "conceptually" from the first sentence of WIKI, apparently it was way too complicated for poor clueless RC and Clinger to figure it out:

Magnetic reconnection is a physical process in highly conducting plasmas in which the magnetic topology is rearranged and magnetic energy is converted to kinetic energy, thermal energy, and particle acceleration.

RC and Clinger forgot the plasma in Clinger's vacuum contraption, and they forgot to include the plasma particle acceleration process that the term "magnetic reconnection" is supposed to describe. OMG the ignorance! Those two are probably the *least* two qualified human beings on planet Earth to even discuss the process known as 'magnetic reconnection' or anything else related to plasma physics!

Now as we all know from basic EM field theory, the conversion of magnetic field energy in any conductor, including plasma, which is caused by variable magnetic fields is called *induction*. There's nothing special or magical about the conversion of magnetic field energy into particle acceleration in plasma compared to solids. The only thing that's different about the process in plasma is the fact that the ions move in plasma too as a result of the changing (time variable) magnetic fields, not just electrons. There's no special process taking place in plasma when the magnetic field changes over time. It's the very same induction process that happens in *any* conductor.

We all know from basic EM field theory that magnetic fields form as a full 3D continuum as full three dimensional *fields*, not tiny little individual 'lines' as the mainstream so ignorantly imagines. Magnetic fields form as completely loops, without beginning and without ending. They can't "disconnect from", nor 'reconnect to" any other tiny little "lines". The *whole field* can experience topology changes over time, and that full field topology change can induce current flow in any conductor, including a plasma.

The rest of RC's post is an absolute *riot*, and they only reinforce the fact that RC hasn't a clue what he's even talking about:

Magnetic field lines are undefined when there is a point with a magnetic field of B = 0 (a null or neutral point) because there is no way to draw a line from a null point passing only through other null points.

That's probably because *there are no fields present in the nulls*, and therefore no "lines' to describe something that doesn't exist! Duh! There are no "lines' anywhere in the null because the field strength is *zero* in the null. OMG.

There may be only one null point and it is surrounded by non-null points! Magnetic fields can easily have a null point, e.g. two parallel, equal currents have a null point between them in 2D (null line in 3D). Move the currents apart and the magnetic field lines will sweep across the null point.

Any location where\magnetic lines (actually fields) exist, or "sweep through" is not called a "null" in the first place. If we change the field, we change the topology of the *entire field* (not just a single line or two) which can of course induce currents in a *plasma* or any other conductor for that matter. However, unfortunately for our clueless Laurel and Hardy of plasma physics, RC and Clinger *left out* the plasma, therefore they could *never* get plasma particle acceleration or 'magnetic reconnection' as it's described on WIKI. That's also why they could not come up with any mathematical description of a non zero rate of "magnetic reconnection" in Clinger's vacuum contraption.

They are undefined at the null point (they break) and defined again after the null point (the reconnect).

WTF? They are undefined at the null point because no field (and no imaginary lines) exist in the null! It's utterly hysterical that they're trying to get "kinetic energy transfers" to occur specifically at the null point when that is the *one place* that field topology changes *cannot* and do not happen. Induction from time variable magnetic fields can occur *everywhere except* in the null because the field strength in the null is always *zero*.

Thus magnetic reconnection.

Thus we see that Reality Check is utterly *clueless* when it comes to plasma physics. He doesn't understand the first thing about plasma. He suffers from a serious case of the Dunning–Kruger effect when it comes to plasma physics which is why he ignorantly believes that he can understand plasma physics terms without even picking up a textbook on the topic of MHD theory. What an ignorant and belligerent putz!

FYI, one rather amusing that that occurred during my conversation on MR theory with the folks at JREF (ISF).....

During our online debate at JREF/ISF, I kept referring to the magnetic field descriptions on WIKI which clearly and succinctly explained that magnetic fields have no source and no sink, and therefore they have no beginning or ending. They got so upset at me citing that specific WIKI page entry that they actually went into the WIKI page and edited out the exact quote which I was citing from it. That's how desperate they got.

Obviously I'm not the only one to experience their blatant censorship of WIKI:

Dungey's paper from almost 60 years ago (1958) demonstrated that electrical discharges are not only "possible" in plasma, electrical discharges occur in high temperature plasma events including multi-million degree solar flare events. RC lied through his teeth about that entire topic in that thread at ISF. He kept trying to reword Dungey's use of the term "discharge" to the term "high current density" as though that distinction somehow meant anything at all from the standpoint of "science". For years I asked RC to provide a published reference to support his claim that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, and he never produced one, anymore than he or Clinger ever produced a mathematical formula to express a non-zero rate of "reconnection" in Clinger's vacuum contraption.

The irony of course is that even the term "high current density" blew away Clinger's claim about plasma being optional in 'magnetic reconnection', because you need charged particles to get "high current density" to occur.

Not only did Clinger and RC lie about plasma being optional in the process known as magnetic reconnection, RC lied his butt off when he erroneously claimed (for years) that electrical discharges are "impossible" in plasma. RC doesn't understand even the most basic aspects of solar physics and plasma physics that have been known and written about for almost 6 decades! His statements are pure ignorance on a stick.

Speaking of liars: In this thread at CF, RC was lying some more when he was defending Koberlein's bogus nonsense about EU solar models predicting "no neutrinos". He lied some more when he tried to blame Findlay for Koberlein's error, and the passage they cited was a reference to Findlay describing the *mainstream* definition of a brown dwarf. The paragraph in question wasn't even about EU theory in the first place! Findlay never used the term "neutrino" in his entire PDF, so there's no way in hell that Findlay ever claimed that any EU solar model predicted "no neutrinos". Even that was just another ridiculous lie that RC told.

What a lying frigging coward. RC hides behind an anonymous handle on the internet while lying in post after post, and relentlessly verbally abusing anyone and everyone who is even remotely associated with EU/PC theory. He does it to everyone, including the dead like Dr. Charles Bruce, including everyone alive today, from published authors like Dungey and Peratt, all the way down to yours truly. I've met and interacted with unethical individuals in my day, but I've never even met anyone in RC's league when it comes to his outright lies and deception, his self imposed ignorance, and his constant stream of personal attacks. RC is just an unethical scumbag and a huge coward. He takes hater behavior to a whole new level. What a perfect spokesman and what a perfect poster child for the mainstream and all their lies about the existence of exotic matter. Billions spent on their invisible snipe hunt, and the lies about the existence of exotic matter still continue unabated.

rather than continual confrontation, which yields nothing for you but oddly enough advances their agenda, why not try to find out why you cant reason with them.

You're probably right that I just need to "let it go", and move on to more productive endeavors. I'm just shocked and blown away by the mainstream's complete lack of ethics, and their willful self imposed ignorance.

I don't believe that it's possible to reason with someone who isn't reasonable, and who has no desire to be reasonable, so I supposed I should just move on.

Whoever "he" is doesn't understand internal combustion engine spark ignition, which, though not exactly astronomical in scale, is an example of a high current density electrical discharge in plasma. I don't know if this a game of semantics or if it is possible that "he" must have never seen a Van De Graaff generator or a Tesla coil, nevermind a CD ignition box.

Whoever "he" is doesn't understand internal combustion engine spark ignition, which, though not exactly astronomical in scale, is an example of a high current density electrical discharge in plasma. I don't know if this a game of semantics or if it is possible that "he" must have never seen a Van De Graaff generator or a Tesla coil, nevermind a CD ignition box.

I agree, time spent getting even is better spent getting ahead.

I'd like to thank everyone for pointing out my need to more and and to direct my energy somewhere more productive. I needed to hear that. Thanks for the useful feedback.

I think take Bengt suggestion and explore EM descriptions of gravity for awhile.

To give a parallel here, I used to spend a lot of audio forum hours arguing with the usual posse of morons who all try to state that High Resolution audio is all snake oil because "nobody can hear anything above CD resolution" and in the end I gave up - some folks will simply not be told, and I think it was best summed up by Dr. Alzofon when he stated that "you will never get a man to understand something that his salary depends on him not understanding". Sadly it has always been thus, with Max Planck also saying something along the lines of new ideas will not gain acceptance by converting the adherents to the old ways, and only when they all die off will it become accepted.

The parts that really used to get up my nose were the constant personal attacks but I have learned to ignore them now.It really is a waste of your time, effort & energy that given the quality of your posts here will be much better spent by doing more of the same and even though it is hard to do, ignore these muppets. You are better than that.

You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.

To give a parallel here, I used to spend a lot of audio forum hours arguing with the usual posse of morons who all try to state that High Resolution audio is all snake oil because "nobody can hear anything above CD resolution" and in the end I gave up - some folks will simply not be told, and I think it was best summed up by Dr. Alzofon when he stated that "you will never get a man to understand something that his salary depends on him not understanding". Sadly it has always been thus, with Max Planck also saying something along the lines of new ideas will not gain acceptance by converting the adherents to the old ways, and only when they all die off will it become accepted.

The parts that really used to get up my nose were the constant personal attacks but I have learned to ignore them now.It really is a waste of your time, effort & energy that given the quality of your posts here will be much better spent by doing more of the same and even though it is hard to do, ignore these muppets. You are better than that.

I completely agree with both the tone and content of this post. Michael has done yeoman work trying to convince the unconvinceable of the error of their ways.

Progress in science really does occur one death at a time.

The only quibble I have is that the quote: "you will never get a man to understand something that his salary depends on him not understanding" is attributed to Upton Sinclair.

To give a parallel here, I used to spend a lot of audio forum hours arguing with the usual posse of morons who all try to state that High Resolution audio is all snake oil because "nobody can hear anything above CD resolution" and in the end I gave up - some folks will simply not be told, and I think it was best summed up by Dr. Alzofon when he stated that "you will never get a man to understand something that his salary depends on him not understanding". Sadly it has always been thus, with Max Planck also saying something along the lines of new ideas will not gain acceptance by converting the adherents to the old ways, and only when they all die off will it become accepted.

The parts that really used to get up my nose were the constant personal attacks but I have learned to ignore them now.It really is a waste of your time, effort & energy that given the quality of your posts here will be much better spent by doing more of the same and even though it is hard to do, ignore these muppets. You are better than that.

I appreciate everyone's sage advice in terms of learning and remembering to just turn the other cheek. It's obviously not worth my time, and I agree with you folks 100 percent. I guess I just needed to hear it. Thanks.

I appreciate everyone's sage advice in terms of learning and remembering to just turn the other cheek. It's obviously not worth my time, and I agree with you folks 100 percent. I guess I just needed to hear it. Thanks.

If you feel like mixing it up with mainstream defenders on the net, then go ahead and have at it!It is entirely up to you.

rather than continual confrontation, which yields nothing for you but oddly enough advances their agenda, why not try to find out why you cant reason with them.

You're probably right that I just need to "let it go", and move on to more productive endeavors. I'm just shocked and blown away by the mainstream's complete lack of ethics, and their willful self imposed ignorance.

I don't believe that it's possible to reason with someone who isn't reasonable, and who has no desire to be reasonable, so I supposed I should just move on.

I'm thinking of Halton Arp, as stting the bar, of when to stop. It's the casual un invested but inquiring observer you wish to inform. IMO What ever arenas you can enter is an opertunity.

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...' Isaac Asimov